Unveiling the Date of Revelation: Expert Analysis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- Uncover the fascinating insights provided by Dr. Mark Wilson on the dating of the Book of Revelation. Explore the implications of placing Revelation before or after the fall of Jerusalem, and how it impacts our understanding of the text.
Archeology study Bible that Dr. Wilson contributed to: amzn.to/3yWtjxO
Dr. Wilson contributed to this Volume on Bible background as well amzn.to/3RiKj7M
His book on biblical Turkey: amzn.to/3VzlRRK
His charts on Revelation: amzn.to/3Xdi0Lu
Check out his website for even more resources: sevenchurches....
Steven, how in the world can the scholars miss that Babylon was Jerusalem? The parallels from Revelation 18 and Matthew 23-24 are quite numerous! Also Rev 11 and many other places make it abundantly clear.
I’m with you there. If you take an early date, it seems pretty clear to me
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews is there some bias in academia for the sake of the modern Jewish people or something? Does that come across as sounding 'anti-semitic' or something - to say that Jerusalem was Babylon?
@@williambrewer in fairness I think, there are some strong points for Rome especially if you take a late date. Sitting on seven hills. The city that rules over the kings of the earth….. etc. You know my position, but I think a good case could be made for Rome.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews yeah, I guess so but those are not insurmountable. Thanks!
@@williambrewer agreed
I hold to the late date, but I'm glad you shared this.
My pastor for a while was Dr. Mark Hitchcock who debated Hank Hannegraff on this topic (you can find it on UA-cam). Mark lays out both internal and external evidence to support the late date (it was the subject of his doctoral dissertation iirc). Maybe you could invite Mark on! 😅
Fwiw I think Hank was a very poor representative for the early date.
@@LesMartin I watched that debate and I thought he did poorly as well. Dr. Hitchcock, as I recall, did his dissertation on the subject. He should have debated someone more like Kenneth Gentry on the subject.
Likely, better options would want a different setting for that debate. 😁 Credit to Hank for agreeing to do it I guess...
@@LesMartinit’s since been made pretty clear by former BAM employees that Hank memorizes what other people write for him, and doesn’t really “know” scripture. That’s why he answers all similar questions with the same phrases every time.
The biggest problem to me with the early date of the Revelation, specifically in applying it to the fall of Jerusalem, is that NONE of the pre-Nicene fathers have that understanding. They all, insofar as I have been able to research it, see the book as a prophecy about FUTURE persecution, or as a rather eclectic collection of allegories expounding the commentators' favorite theological hobby horses.
That’s fair. I would add however that Revelation was a disputed book for quite some time in church history. Many didn’t even see it as canonical. And some didn’t think it was penned by John the apostle. It isn’t as if they had a uniform view that is widely accepted today.
My view on the book makes it possible for the preterist and the futurist to contribute something to the understanding of the book.
I'm so glad my amillennial idealist view does not rest on when the date was. It fits either way and the typology for the destruction of Jerusalem fits either in past (if later date) or future (if earlier date)
Very interesting topic though that I need to look into more at some point Lord willing.
I would describe myself as typological-partial preterist. So we would have quite a bit of things to agree on.
Good discussion. Nice job by both of you.
Hey Steven, unrelated question: what was the base text of translation for the different languages of the world prior to the TR?
Hello Steven, there was a statue of Rome in Caesarea Maritima. Could it be the statue of Revelation 13? Patmos is located on the roman waterway between Caesarea and Ephesus. I believe John is telling Asia Minor about what is happening in Judea, somewhere around 70 CE.
Its interesting thought, I haven't ever looked into it.
Revelation was clearly written prior to the end of the age and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. That is indeed a huge part of the book!
Hi my friend! How have you been?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Hi there! Been well! We recently had our 3rd child so been extra busy, heh. How have you been?
@@royalpriest89 very good. Congratulations on the third child! That’s a real blessing!
Like so many preterists, amillennialists, et al., I fear that Dr. Wilson's eschatology has colored his conclusion regarding the dating of Revelation.
It was written pre-70 AD. The evidence internally and externally just backs it up much better than those who late date it due to the writings of ONE man that wasn’t even born until AD 130.
Revelation was the words of Christ, dictated to John.
Jesus said He was coming "soon" and gave John the description of the 6 seals in Revelation 6
and so much of the book of Revelation deals with the 12 tribes of Israel (Rev 7-14, etc)
The 6 seals of Revelation 6 matches Matthew 24 where Jesus says He was coming in that generation with all the similar signs (wars, false messiahs, famine, earthquakes, sun/moon turning dark, etc).
Therefore Revelation was most likely written prior to AD70.
Also Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2 that the man of lawlessness would sit in the temple of God when Christ would come to destroy him.
Given that the Jerusalem temple was the main temple of God pre-AD70, then it most likely seems that Christ's coming of judgment on Israel was in AD70.
But I guess the question is this: who was the beast? Was it the zealot-led Jewish army? Or was it Rome?
Rome was not destroyed by Christ in AD70. It was the zealot-led Jewish armies that were destroyed.
But then again, the Jewish forces led by Simon Bar Kokhba recaptured Jerusalem in AD132-136 before the Romans defeated them again.
The Roman empire became Christian and then the empire collapsed in the 4th century.
If Revelation was written before AD70, then AD70 was the main focus of Revelation.
Otherwise, the AD136 war was the main war in focus.
This was an enjoyable video.
I would prefer an early date. It'd be easier by a long shot, but, unless I have strong evidence to the contrary, I assume that early Church testimony is sound, and external evidence is more reliable than internal evidence on most things.
Thus, Irenaeus' testimony is just too strong. His "I don't know" on the number has little bearing on "He wrote a short while ago, during the reign of Domitian," and that cannot have been a short regency instead of imperial rule.
The same is true about Christian martyrs under Domitian. The Christian historians and hagiography testify to Domitian persecuting, albeit to varying degrees. We don't have contemporary witnesses to a lot of things in antiquity, so it's very hard for the absence of contemporary testimony to constitute evidence of absence for me. If we assume an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, then a lot of biblical events must disappear, too. The Exodus, for certain, would have to go.
I think you might enjoy this video: Cracking the Code: Dating the Book of Revelation
ua-cam.com/video/EDx-oPWT4eo/v-deo.html. It might not persuade you but I hope it could provide some food for thought.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thanks. I'll give it a listen once the work night slows down.
I am for the early date, and base it primarily on Scripture (see the references).
I believe the Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation before AD 70, but lived to witness Jesus coming in judgment upon Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd Temple.
In John 21:20-23 Jesus tells Peter that John will remain alive till He (Jesus) “comes “, (meaning coming in judgment upon Israel, 66-73 AD).
Sometime after that I believe John was martyred. See: Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40.
Also, a careful look at the 7th chapter of Daniel references the 4th Beast and the Saints occupying the Kingdom.
Also see: Matthew 16:28.
Jesus does not tell John that he will remain alive till he comes. Instead, Jesus tells Peter that if John were to live, it's none of Peter's business.
22. Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
Then, John sets the record straight about the rumor that he would live.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
See videos:
New research expands on J Atwill's discovery that the story of Jesus is a parody of Emperor' Titus' victories.
Paul the Apostle: Liar and Conman | James Valliant, Rabbi Tovia Singer
People such as yourselves have been predicting the revelation for 2000 years and this one won’t come true either.
See videos:
New research expands on J Atwill's discovery that the story of Jesus is a parody of Emperor' Titus' victories.
Paul the Apostle: Liar and Conman | James Valliant, Rabbi Tovia Singer
You are 1954 years too late.
Wrong, Irenius dates it at 95 in his writings
It’s been a couple decades since I was really into this topic, but I’m pretty sure that Irenaeus also got the age of Jesus and the name of the Emperor over Pontous Pilate wrong. So he’s not a good witness for this debate.
Never heard of Irenius.
Hey Steven, unrelated question: what was the base text of translation for the different languages of the world prior to the TR?
Prior to the TR there limited translations available. Wycliffe based his translation off of the Latin. The Coptic was based on mostly Alexandrian manuscripts. The Syriac Peshitta was based on the Byzantine Greek manuscripts mostly
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews do we know how many, or which ones were based on solely the Latin versus solely the Greek available?